and actively supported the multiple-use management plan devised for this ranger district.

The zone advisory committee, which is charged with recommending tax levies and designating water conservation and flood control projects to be supported, has concluded that the wild area should remain in its present status. In the event that the area is opened for commercial ski resorts, this committee may be compelled to consider that the management plan has been refuted and recommend that these local funds be discontinued because it would counter the zone's efforts in combating the fire and burn problems in the management of this watershed.

Thank you.

Mr. BARING. Are there any questions?

Mr. JOHNSON. I have just one or two questions.

At the present time, this area is being used as a ski area and it is also being used as a sunimer recreation area?

Mr. HINCKLEY. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you disagree with that use?

Mr. HINCKLEY. No; that is the established use.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, if the area were opened up to a day-use ski area, it is my understanding that the legislation would open it up for only day-use ski area and there would be no overnight facilities in there whatsoever. The people would move in and move out of the area daily. Do you object to that use?

Mr. HINCKLEY. Well, you are putting more people in the watershed, and our experience has been here that the more people you have in the watershed, the more chance you have of fire, use of water, and things of that nature.

Mr. JOHNSON. The area is open at the present time for use, there is no limitation placed on those who go in there to ski, there is no limitation placed on those who go in there to find summer recreation within the area; is that not true?

Mr. HINCKLEY. That is correct.

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, to use this drawing, is it not for use both for a winter sports area and also for a summer recreation area?

Mr. HINCKLEY. That is true, but they have to walk in there now. If you build a road in and let everybody go in you will have thousands more people.

Mr. JOHNSON. We are not talking about building a road into the wilderness area as such.

I think we have had enough testimony from enough people to say that if this was opened up for day use, this would be used only for skiing purposes, at least as is proposed in legislation introduced by your Congressman and some of the rest of us in Congress.

Mr. HINCKLEY. Well, the creation of commercial ski resorts is not planned in the multiple-use plan for this particular forest area that was gotten up a number of years back.

We say that the forest officials should stay by their plan.

Mr. JOHNSON. You believe in multiple use? If you do, you certainly believe in recreation in the forested areas of the United States. That is what is taking place in most of our forests.

Mr. HINCKLEY. Recreation in certain areas, yes, and we do not say that this area should be opened to commercial recreation.

Mr. JOHNSON. There is to be no commercial use as intended by this bill. This legislation does not call for that.

The legislation opens up a portion of this for day use only for skiing; for a ski area. I have 24 of these in my own district, 24 of these areas that are on Forest Service land plus some located partly or completely on private lands.

Overall, they are generally using a good deal of the Forest Service land. I have 10 national forests in my own congressional district and we have recreation of all types on a multiple-use basis under the multiple-use bill enacted by the Congress a few years ago.

Now, I think we should hold our testimony here to what the legislation calls for. We are here to hear testimony as it relates to the legislation pending before the Congress.

Thank you, sir.

Mr. BARING. Mr. Hosmer?

Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Hinckley, do you see a difference in the circumstances here in San Bernardino County, closely adjacent to a large metropolitan area, in fact, comprising a part of that large metropolitan area, any difference than the situation that might exist in Congressman Johnson's larger congressional area and perhaps one more remote from, let us say, the teeming masses of people, as far as the issue is concerned of possible fire hazard and so forth?

Mr. HINCKLEY. The answer to that, sir, is that there are other areas out of the San Bernardino National Forest that have been set aside for ski lifts and commercial ski resorts. I say that those can take care of that business and leave this particular area, the wilderness area set aside in San Gorgonio as a wilderness area. That is the position of the water conservation and flood control committee that embraces the district.

Mr. HOSMER. One further question and that is with respect to the proposed road or roads.

Is it your understanding that the road would be open all year round and therefore available for use not only by skiers at appropriate times, but to other persons at all times of the year except for nighttime closure?

Mr. HINCKLEY. That has been the history of the roads that were built by the CCC in the San Bernardino National Forest, that they were locked and closed for a portion of the year, and 20 years later, they are open to the public on a year-round basis.

We just felt that they-that that would probably be what would develop for the access road to this ski tow.

Mr. HOSMER. Has your committee found it possible to make any estimate of the additional population that might ensue as a result of such a road?

Mr. HINCKLEY. No; we have not made any estimates.

Mr. HOSMER. Are they in the thousands or the tens of thousands; would you know?

Mr. HINCKLEY. Well, from the patronage of the ski tows in Big Bear Lake, around Big Bear Lake, I would say it could be up in the tens of thousands.

Mr. HOSMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BARING. Thank you very much, Mr. Hinckley.

Next, we will call on Mr. Edward F. Dolder, Deputy Director, Parks and Recreation.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. DOLDER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION, ON BEHALF OF FRED L. JONES, DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

Mr. DOLDER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am presenting the summary statement of Fred L. Jones, the director of the California State Department of Parks and Recreation.

In May 1964 the U.S. Forest Service produced an excellent report entitled "National Forest Lands Adaptable to Winter Sports Use in Southern California." After discussing the existing winter sports areas in the national forests of southern California (and this includes practically all such developments in this part of the State), some of which are dependent entirely on natural snow and some of which supplement the natural snowfall with artificial or "custom" snow, the report then discusses potential sites for further development of winter sports in southern California. These are six in number, including San Gorgonio. The best of these areas are in Kern and Tulare Counties in the extreme southern part of the Sierra Nevada. Although farther from Los Angeles than the San Gorgonio Wilderness, these better areas are within a 4-hour drive of the metropolitan region. While admittedly better from the winter sports standpoint than any other areas south of the Tehachapi, San Gorgonio does not always have completely adequate snow, and during some winters its use would be limited unless artificial snow were added to the natural snowfall.

The report concludes, among other points, that the winter sports needs of southern California can be met without developing facilities at San Gorgonio; and that development funds might equally well be spent in the southern Sierra areas where there would be greater capacity, present availability, and no invasion of a dedicated area nor the controversy attendant thereto.

There is another important factor bearing on the availability of winter recreation in southern California. Within the last 2 years, the State of California has begun the acquisition of a major unit of the State park system immediately adjoining the San Gorgonio wilderness on the east. This area has recently been named Heart Bar State Park, and some 4 miles of its boundary adjoins that of San Gorgonio. It is our plan and intention to develop winter sports facilities in this new and very fine unit of the State park system. Although at a slightly lower elevation than the lands proposed for development at San Gorgonio, this new State park will obviously have much the same climate and similar weather, by virtue of its immediate proximity. I submit that it would be better public policy to provide for winter development in this adjacent area, which cannot itself qualify as wilderness, than to invade a dedicated wilderness with roads and other mechanical contrivances necessary for the enjoyment of winter sports. The fact of the matter is that there simply is no other land that can be added to San Gorgonio Wilderness as a replacement, as a true replacement for that proposed for diversion for development purposes, as contemplated in the bills under consideration by your committee. If there were, it probably would have been included in the primitive area when it was first established in 1931. Heart

Bar State Park should be ideal for "family winter recreation," the stated purposes of the bills now before you.

Another important consideration is the situation at Mount San Jacinto, lying directly to the south of Mount San Gorgonio and also the subject of great controversy a few years ago. When the aerial tramway was authorized, one of its major purposes was to make some of the high country at Mount San Jacinto accessible for winter sports purposes. In fact, the agency that constructed and now operates the tramway is called the Mount San Jacinto Winter Park Authority. Although, as predicted by some experts, Mount San Jacinto did not prove to be well suited to major winter sports developments, it is well suited in most winter seasons to family winter recreation and general snow play. Because of the existence of the tramway, this area can now be used without the great expense of constructing roads or parking areas. Mount San Jacinto is also a unit of the State park system-one of the finest, and one of the largest in southern California outside of the desert region.

Speaking for the California Department of Parks and Recreation, I urge you to disapprove the bills now before you for that modification of the San Gorgonio Wilderness.

Thank you.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to present a statement on behalf of Mr. Hugo Fisher, administrator of the Resources Agency of California.

Mr. BARING. Very well, you may do so.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD F. DOLDER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATION, ON BEHALF OF HUGO FISHER, ADMINISTRATOR, RESOURCES AGENCY OF CALIFORNIA Mr. DOLDER. I appreciate the opportunity to place before you the position of the Resources Agency of the State of California on the proposed bills which would permit the development of facilities for so-called family winter recreation within the San Gorgonio Wilder

ness.

It is not necessary for me to review the history of this outstanding piece of wild country, embracing the highest point in southern California. You are already aware, I am sure, that the area was set aside some 34 years ago as the San Gorgonio Primitive Area, later to be reclassified as the San Gorgonio Wild Area under newer Forest Service regulations, and still later to be embraced within the National Wilderness Preservation System, established by act of Congress only last year. You are also aware, I am sure, that insistent pressure for the development of winter sports facilities within the dedicated area resulted in the holding a 2-day hearing in this city by the Forest Service in 1947, on the basis of which the Chief of that agency decided against allowing such winter sports development and against recommending modification of the boundary of the primitive area to accommodate such development. Great pressure was again brought to bear upon Members of the Congress at the time that the wilderness bills were under consideration, seeking to modify the boundaries of the San Gorgonio Wilderness or to secure its exclusion from the national system in order to make possible the development of a winter sports

area which would otherwise be excluded under the terms of the legislation under consideration. It was the decision of the Congress that these proposals were not in the public interest; and accordingly the San Gorgonio Wilderness in its present status was established without. modification.

The Resources Agency of California does not question the necessity of meeting the increasing demand for additional winter sports facilities, any more than for other types of recreational use. These needs must and will be met, both by private investment and also by several levels of governmental responsibility. But surely it is not necessary to meet this demand by destroying or compromising another very important form of outdoor recreational use, and one that is probably more difficult overall to fulfill. I do most urgently call to your attention the fact that the very pressure of population and of recreational need which are bringing about an increase in the demand for winter sports facilities are also, with equal certainty and in equal proportion, causing an increase in the demand and the need for wilderness types of recreational use.

Any modification of the wilderness, however, is an irreversible procedure; for once the wilderness has been invaded by roads or other facilities for mechanical travel, and developed for the many specialized types of recreational uses which are now so popular, the wilderness itself has departed and the land is then no different from any other recreation area. Surely we must not sacrifice fragile and irreplaceable values in order to meet our recreational needs.

The Resources Agency of California opposes H.R. 6891 and the other bills under your consideration which would modify and reduce the value of the San Gorgonio Wilderness.

Mr. BARING. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Johnson, you have some questions?

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes; thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Dolder, in your statement, you said this was not a good snow

area.

I would say from the records kept that this is one of the best snow fields we have in California, is that not correct?

Mr. DOLDER. I would say its continuous snow record is not among the best in the State.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think you can ski in this area almost the full winter season. They hold races here and I believe the last one was held here in June. They are skiing in this area and there is snow in there. With your State park facilities, you will never have a guaranteed snowfield in your State park, will you?

Mr. DOLDER. I think we have.

Mr. JOHNSON. I think the snow records will bear this out because the snow records kept as far as San Gorgonio is concerned shows that this is one of the most reliable snowfields in California.

Mr. DOLDER. I would say for southern California.

Mr. JOHNSON. No; I would say for the entire State of California. It has more snow than we have in our area.

A longer skiing period is experienced than is experienced in most of the ski areas.

I would just like to keep the record straight on the amount of snow and the availability of snow in this particular area.